Whether a petitioner who files a post-conviction petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel is barred by res judicata from raising similar arguments in a Crim. R. 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 7 In 2013 after receiving from a non-profit organization, a copy of discovery index, and its contents, Petitioner filed a Post-Conviction , . Petition pursuant to ORC 2953.21, claiming the discovery index and its contents to be newly discovered evidence, evidence which he used to support both prongs of his ineffective assistance of trial ard appellate counsel grounds raised therein, After a new decision in the Ohio Supreme Court in Tiecember 28, 2016, in State ex rel, Caster v. City of Columbus, 151 Ohio St. 3d 425, allowing full discovery, after completion of trial under ORC. 149,13 (Public Records Availability), and use of material gained pursuant &@ ORC {44,4 3) xequest, to support a Post~Conviction Petition, or motion, Petitioner after receiving documents from the request found enclosed the missing subpoena, with no affidavit, allegedly obtained by Det, Pigman to search Cin. Bell Wireless, And immediately filed a Crim. R, 33 Motion on the basis of newly digcovared evidence (i.e. @t. Pignan's subpoena with no affidavit, "Ex. 01", hereinafter), asserting similar grounds as had been | asserted in support of his second prong of his Strickland claim in his ORC | 2953.21 Petition. Showing prejudice to defendant by trial and appellate counsel's failure to obtain, review, and litigate "Ex. 01", during trial and direct review procedures, . 1. Is a Petitoner who files ‘a Post~Conviction Petition asserting Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (hereinafter, IAC), of trial, and appellate counsel who supports his grounds with arguments in show of the required prejudice prong, barred by res judicata doctrine,after discovery of new evidence, from Tosind similar arguments in his Crim, R, 33 motion which are otherwise unknown outside the facts of the new evidence? , 2, When a state law which prevents newly discoovered evidence obtained by Ohio's Revised Code 149.43 from baing used to support new trial requests in Post-Conviction Petitions, and Crim, R. 33 motions, is overruled, and | Petitoner obtains newly discovered evidence by ORC 149.43, under the new law, is his right to due process, and equal protection of law pursuant the — Sth, and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution violated when the state Court's decision denies evidence to be new, prevents resolution of Brady’ violations, false testimony, and 4th Amendment violations which had a , reasonable probability of changing the outcome of his trial, or to undermine confidence in the verdict? Be , 3. Tibas the state of Ohio's failure to file and journalize "Ex, Oo!" and/or failure to disclose such to trial counsel after request by him pursuant to Crim. x. 16, regardless of good, or bad faith violate U.S. Supreme Court precedence in Brady v, Maryland, 373 U.S. 83? 4, Is "Ex, Ol", (Oat, Pigman's subpoena, with no affidavit) newly discovered, undisclosed, material evidence within the requirement of Brady v. Maryland, . 373 U.8. 83? 5. Oid the Chie, Montgomary County, Court of Common Pleas failure to address Petitoner's actual innocence claim, and the newly — . @vidence in support of such claim violate his due process right pursuant the Sth, and 14th Amendment’ of the U.S Constitution to a fair trial, where such affected the decision of the jury, and could have reasonably changed . the outcome of the trial?. oo 6. ‘as trial, and. appellate counsel violate the duty owed their client . when they purposely, and knowingly fail to arque a clear Brady violation, which prevents lodging of a meritorious 4th Amendment claim?